Climate scientist cleared, but zombie “controversy” won’t die

Kiddies, gather round and let me tell you another chapter in the story of "If you irritate people, they act irritated."

Let's begin with a recap: just before the Copenhagen climate conference, a large wodge (that's a technical term) of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia magically appeared in public. Those e-mails contained all the makings of a false controversy. And, as you can imagine, anyone who had been grinding an axe wasted no time in placing said axe vigorously into the back of any climate scientist they could find.

The first target was Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit. The colloquial language used in his e-mail correspondence was trumpeted as fraud, while he also showed that his response to harassment (and there is no doubt that he was being harassed) was to become belligerent and petty-minded. Jones was cleared by not one, not two, but three separate enquiries.

Target number two was Michael Mann at Penn State in the US. He had corresponded with Phil Jones and, of course, in the leaked e-mails much of that correspondence became public. Skeptics swung into action and rained complaints down on Penn State. Although no formal accusations of fraud were made, the tone of the e-mails was apparent and Penn State launched its own enquiry.

The first problem is that there was no specific complaint, so one had to be constructed. The university eventually used the e-mails to construct a single complaint that covered the general themes. These complaints were:

Allegation 1: "Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data? "

Allegation 2: "Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4 [a particular dataset whose handling had been questioned in the enquiries that Phil Jones went through], as suggested by Phil Jones?"

Allegation 3: "Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?"

Allegation 4: "Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?"

To determine if there was any truth behind these allegations, the university assembled a team of academics from both within and outside the university. The individual committee members reviewed relevant "...e-mail correspondence, journal articles, Op-Ed columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the National Academy of Sciences report entitled 'Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,' ISBN: 0- 309-66144-7 and various blogs on the Internet."

From this, they drafted an additional 15 more specific questions that needed to be answered in addition to the four general allegations. Mann answered these and follow-up questions in a two-hour interview. He was then asked to provide all e-mails related to the fourth IPCC report—these are the e-mails that Phil Jones had requested be deleted—which he did, along with a file that indexed the e-mails and a further 10 pages of supplemental information.

One of the hurdles with any enquiry into a scientific topic is trying to interpret the data and analysis methods. Each branch of science has built up its techniques through years of testing, and it takes a long time to master and understand why things are done the way they are done. To cope with this particular hurdle, the committee consulted an outside expert. However, as we will see, they felt that this was not a sufficiently close examination.

The conclusion of this investigation was that Mann had not suppressed or falsified data. Nor had he deleted e-mails and/or data related to AR4. And Mann had not misused privileged information. In other words, Mann had been above board for allegations one, two and three. Decision four was to launch another enquiry:

Decision 4: The Inquiry Committee determined that "given that information emerged in the form of the e-mails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public's mind about Dr. Mann's conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, an Investigatory Committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 [university regulation] to further consider this allegation."

Thus, with this short paragraph the enquiry spawned another enquiry. The second enquiry interviewed both Mann and a number of other scientists to determine Mann's view on data sharing, code sharing, and manuscript sharing. This was then compared to the views of other scientists, including Richard Lindzen, a well known critic of Mann's.

What was found was that Mann was exactly in line with the community as far as data sharing goes: the collector gets first use, after that the data is placed in a repository that allows public access. The processed data gets presented in papers, while the in-between steps are not made public.

Code sharing was uncommon for a variety of reasons in the past, but is now more common. It is, however, performed on a collegial basis, rather than through repositories. All scientists, except one, felt that the methods section of the paper was sufficient to replicate results, negating the need for code sharing as a rule. Although the other scientists had a range of views, Mann was pretty much right in line with the majority of the scientists consulted.

The only place where Mann found himself near one end of the spectrum was on sharing papers that were still going through peer review. He had, in the past, shared papers that he had peer reviewed but were not yet published. In these cases, the papers were authored by scientists that he had close contact with and were sent to other close contacts with the stipulation that they were not to be passed on. He said that although he did not have explicit permission, he understood that he had implicit permission (e.g., he felt that his friends trusted his judgment). The other scientists offered a mix of opinion on this, with some specifically requiring explicit permission, while others did not.

The end result: Mann is a scientist who behaves like a scientist. He is above board and, given his record, an extremely good researcher.

Before the "skeptics" jump in with allegations of the Penn State investigation being a coverup, I'd like to post this for their edification. I hope anybody rushing to scream "WHITEWASH!" will at least give it a read first.

This may have been a necessity from a cover-your-ass standpoint. Penn State is a public university, and I presume is ultimately beholden to elected officials at some level.

However, In the minds of conspiracy theorists, no amount of evidence to the contrary will disuade them from their opinion. If I build a time machine and take deniers forward in time to see if/what climate change does, they still wouldn't believe it. Any cover story or evidence presented is just a larger conspiracy.

Of course, anti-global warmingists are basically anti-global warmingists. Thus against the scientific method, because science doesn't suit their preconceptions. Consequently, they are also unable to gauge any objective assessment on scientific integrity, because they decided to be against it a priori.

Unfortunately, none of this will reach the press in the USA. A year later, climate change skeptics will still be referring to the "Climate Gate" scandal. :/

there is no legitimate scientific basis for deleting data that doesn't do what you want or expect. There is no legitimate basis for "expecting" a result and then being confused at to why you're not getting what you're expecting.

this is your religion, not mine.. I'll feel free to poke at it with logic, reason, and science all fscking day long.

Unfortunately, none of this will reach the press in the USA. A year later, climate change skeptics will still be referring to the "Climate Gate" scandal. :/

there is no legitimate scientific basis for deleting data that doesn't do what you want or expect. There is no legitimate basis for "expecting" a result and then being confused at to why you're not getting what you're expecting.

this is your religion, not mine.. I'll feel free to poke at it with logic, reason, and science all fscking day long.

Unfortunately, none of this will reach the press in the USA. A year later, climate change skeptics will still be referring to the "Climate Gate" scandal. :/

there is no legitimate scientific basis for deleting data that doesn't do what you want or expect. There is no legitimate basis for "expecting" a result and then being confused at to why you're not getting what you're expecting.

this is your religion, not mine.. I'll feel free to poke at it with logic, reason, and science all fscking day long.

Welcome, Mr. Strawman.

the entire controversy centered on "trick" to "hide the decline".

(for the record, using high-school debate terminology doesn't make you sound more or actually be more scientific or logical)

1.the fact is that data was dropped when various datasets went various different directions (btw: do you *honestly* think that if the tree ring data had gone up, do you think that they would have removed it from the AR4 diagrams and analysis? If you do - you're not just a religious nut you're a cultist)2.no one was told outside the clergy at East Englia that it was dropped3.when called on it, there was no scientific or logical reason given for dropping the data that didn't match what the religious leaders expected.

so - if that's a strawman in your religion, then i want nothing to do with your religious zealotry.

Ars is a really great site until they start posting their slanted eco scare mongering stories. How about for a change they try doing a balanced story and maybe explain statements like this from the IPCC who Ars told us just last week all scientists every where agree with.

>"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential. "

And yet this guy's career is probably over. Would any real journal risk publishing his work now? I don't know if man is affecting the climate. It's a pretty easy claim that the climate is changing though as "ALL things change". But the fact that they went through this after pure speculation on the part of the accusers is just crap. What penalty is accessed to the accusers for being wrong? Nothing.

In other news, a independent panel of oil company executives has cleared BP of any wrongdoing in oil-drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

Also: the plumber who tells you your plumbing needs work is always 100% full of crap. The federal employees who tell you a strong national government is necessary for a healthy society? Nothing but selfish exploitation of unproven theories from self-proclaimed "experts" with their fancy college degrees.

It should it be noted that supposedly Penn State has received a $2 million grant, of which Mann himself received $550,000, to study the impact of climate change. I doubt they'd be very eager to say there was anything fishy going on if it meant possibly giving that up.

Also, no mention of the Nation Science Foundation being likely to investigate whether Penn State's inquiry was adequate?

Unfortunately, none of this will reach the press in the USA. A year later, climate change skeptics will still be referring to the "Climate Gate" scandal. :/

there is no legitimate scientific basis for deleting data that doesn't do what you want or expect. There is no legitimate basis for "expecting" a result and then being confused at to why you're not getting what you're expecting.

Deleting data that doesn't do what you expect may or may not be appropriate - if you can determine that some data is known-bad due to instrument fault, data corruption, or such then there's no reason to include it in your analysis or to store it.

The second point is entirely without merit. There is every reason to expect a result and then be confused as to why the data you collect doesn't match it. Scientists aren't blank slates blindly recording data and science isn't about collecting random facts. Science is important only in that it allows random facts to be interpreted through theory and hypothesis - and that said theories and hypotheses are expected to be able to explain a wide range of facts and tend to be discarded or modified when facts they can't explain are encountered.

Expecting a result (what one might call a hypothesis) and being surprised when the data doesn't match it is exactly what a scientist should be doing.

While it is possible, Penn State gets research money like they had their own printing press. I doubt they would jeopardize their standing in modern research by lying for a mere $2 million. Its a drop in the bucket for these guys.

It should it be noted that supposedly Penn State has received a $2 million grant, of which Mann himself received $550,000, to study the impact of climate change. I doubt they'd be very eager to say there was anything fishy going on if it meant possibly giving that up.

Also, no mention of the Nation Science Foundation being likely to investigate whether Penn State's inquiry was adequate?

Right, because in order to protect that $2 million, they would put the other $2.8 billion they have in research funding at risk by a cover up. The scientists on the panel aren't even from his department, so they have no reason to protect him, unless you think scientists are some homogenous group like the police and will all band together to protect one of their own (they wont, I assure you). I doubt the NSF will investigate further, since they know what information the NSF would want and I'm sure they covered it. I don't think you realize how little $2 million dollars in research money actually is to a big university. Keep in mind also that that money goes toward support staff and equipment that if the grant is gone, the university just fires or doesn't buy. The same thing with Mann's $550,000- he doesn't pocket that. That buys computer modeling time and equipment and salary "support". He doesn't get to pocket it, he doesn't even get a raise- his department just doesn't have to pay as much of his salary.

I really don't understand the whole "they made up global warming to get funding" thing. They're studying climate, if there wasn't global warming, they would study some other issue. It's not like there aren't plenty of other problems to study, or that the money they get for studying global warming is making them rich, or getting them anything but grief for their trouble.

It should it be noted that supposedly Penn State has received a $2 million grant, of which Mann himself received $550,000, to study the impact of climate change. I doubt they'd be very eager to say there was anything fishy going on if it meant possibly giving that up.

Penn State, class of 2002 here. You can walk through research lab basements on campus and occasionally see gear lying around that cost more than $2M. Good chance if you head up to north campus and visit the Salvage outlet that you'll see more than that original-purchase-value of gear in their back lot. (Seriously awesome place to pick up institutional research gear at scrap and salvage prices, if you know what you're doing). Anyway, $2M is a drop in the bucket when your total budget exceeds $2000M. This conspiracy is a non-starter.

Fist off.. I am not a climate scientist, so I am not qualified to independently look at the data and come to a conclusion of the validity of the models/theories out there. The general idea of the "greenhouse effect" is definitely sound science - but the larger question of human caused climate change is a much, much more difficult question to answer, as there are many other variables at play in very complex systems.

That said, with what's at stake (billions/trillions of dollars spent/somewhat drastic lifestyle changes trying to solve the climate change problem vs. environmental devastation if we don't do enough), the science and the scientists need to be above reproach. Unfortunately, this has not been the case ("hide the decline", obviously erroneous glacier data in the IPCC report, etc.). Whether the practices are deemed acceptable by the "community" is not sufficient - we need to demand better. We need completely open, transparent access so that ideas and assumptions can be challenged, with only the truth surviving rigorous analysis at the end of the day. This is what science *should* be.. and it is what it *must* be if we are to use the conclusions of climate science to make the extremely important decisions that must be made.

Whether the practices are deemed acceptable by the "community" is not sufficient- we need to demand better.

Better than what? An e-mail that boils down something complicated into a simple phrase? Furthermore, as you point out, you're not a climate scientist. Who are you to say that the current practices are not sufficient to prevent erroneous data and fraudulent claims from factoring into scientific conclusions?

Quote:

We need completely open, transparent access so that ideas and assumptions can be challenged, with only the truth surviving rigorous analysis at the end of the day.

There is open, transparent access. All of the data is made available to anyone who wants to read it. I don't know what "obviously erroneous glacier data" was in the IPCC report, but the report is public; that's how you know it's there.

No, what you're trying to do is raise the bar beyond mere science, to a point that simply isn't possible. Science is the best we've got; you can either accept it or reject it. But it isn't getting "better".

I love it how everyone demands the scientists be above reproach, while simultaneously living in a "democracy" that allows big-oil to "donate" to politicians in order to control the legislative process.

It's pretty cool how the formalised corruption doesn't even rate a mention in the media these days.

It should it be noted that supposedly Penn State has received a $2 million grant, of which Mann himself received $550,000, to study the impact of climate change. I doubt they'd be very eager to say there was anything fishy going on if it meant possibly giving that up.

From the link I posted way before you showed up:

Quote:

White also claimed that Mann’s contribution to PSU’s overall research budget was tiny. S&R decided to verify that claim and investigated the total value of all the research grants that Mann brought into the PSU coffers as compared to the total research money that PSU has earned while Mann’s been a member of the faculty.

According to a list of grants at The Free Republic, Mann has brought in a total of $4.2 million since he joined PSU in 2006, with a significant portion of that money to be spent over the next several years. From 2006 to 2009, Mann’s grants totaled about $1.8 million. In that same period, PSU’s total research income was $2.8 billion ($2,804 million). As a percentage, Mann’s grants represented 0.06% of the total research money that PSU was granted between 2006 and 2009. Clearly, as White pointed out, “[i]t makes no sense that [Mann's] grants could corrupt the whole system.”

Unfortunately, none of this will reach the press in the USA. A year later, climate change skeptics will still be referring to the "Climate Gate" scandal. :/

there is no legitimate scientific basis for deleting data that doesn't do what you want or expect.

There probably wouldn't be. Was there ever done in this case?

Quote:

this is your religion, not mine.. I'll feel free to poke at it with logic, reason, and science all fscking day long.

Except you don't care for science when it doesn't do what you want or expect. Same with independent investigations of alleged wrong-doing, it seems.

gsfprez wrote:

the entire controversy centered on "trick" to "hide the decline".

Do you know what that even referred to? You'll have to show me that you do before you continue talking about it. Explain to me in your own words exactly what that means and what incident it referred to.

jvillain wrote:

Ars is a really great site until they start posting their slanted eco scare mongering stories.

How dare they cover mainstream science on a subject that has effects on everybody!

Quote:

How about for a change they try doing a balanced story and maybe explain statements like this from the IPCC who Ars told us just last week all scientists every where agree with.

>"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential. "

The most recent report is from six years after the one you're quoting, you know. You're not even quoting all of it, the first sentence is omitted: "- Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models." These are recommendations in a list of the same from the 2001 IPCC report in order to better understand the climate, because as it notes several times on that page there was a downturn in the number of climate monitoring networks. When you separate damning-sounding bits from the whole to make it seem like something is being said when it's not, you're engaging in a practice called "quote mining." Creationists do it all the time to try and undermine the scientific strength of evolution; you don't need to bring the practice more fully into the climate discussion.

b5bartender wrote:

In other news, a independent panel of oil company executives has cleared BP of any wrongdoing in oil-drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

Explain how the makeup of the panel of investigators is comparable to your imaginary scenario, please.

joshv wrote:

"The end result: Mann is a scientist who behaves like a scientist. He is above board and, given his record, an extremely good researcher."

This says really nothing about Mann himself, and volumes about the state of modern science.

And what do YOU think Mann has done to deserve scorn if he's being held up as a good example of scientists? List off his offenses.

XavierItzmann wrote:

Of course, we see that the whitewashing panels on both sides of the Atlantic relied on data as delivered by the accused themselves.

Did you read the link I posted? It specifically addresses claims of "whitewashing" and why they do not wash. Also, how is your characterization of the investigation in any way accurate?

Chris Lee / Chris writes for Ars Technica's science section. A physicist by day and science writer by night, he specializes in quantum physics and optics. He lives and works in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.